Snopes = Propagandic Shills

I’ve personally fact checked Snopes several times from some Liberal or SJW throwing it at me pretending it was absolute proof of their claim: check it for myself and then prove Snopes was lying through their keyboards. It’s happened on multiple occasions over the last 3-4 years.

So not only will Snopes lie by omission via skewing the sampling: but they will, in fact, absolutely put out verifiably false propaganda to aid their political leanings. I have personally seen it for myself.

“By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision.”

NOTE – Snopes did not directly quote the New York Times article, nor did they provide a link to it. This presentation is a blatant falsehood. I happen to have read that very same article, from the New York Times: so reading Snopes I was able to quite adamantly point at the screen and call “Bullshit”.

What that New York Times article stipulated, was the scandalous behavior conducted by the Clinton foundation, and the millions of dollars donated to it by the Mining company in question: leading up to that sale.

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

Also: No where in this New York Times article did the New York Times article’s Author state or stipulate that “According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision.” That statement is fictitious. The New York Times article, which Snopes NEGLECTED to provide a link to while making assertions about what the article contained without directly quoting it: was in fact quoting Clinton Spokesperson.

What the New York Times article did stipulate, and this is why Snopes neither quoted it nor linked to the article directly:

“The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level.”

Snopes paraphrased a line from the New York Times article: which quoted a Clinton campaign Spokesperson and while not directly quoting the original article, nor providing the reader a link to it: presented the Clinton campaign spokesperson’s paraphrased quote as having come FROM the New York Times.

You see Snopes needs some exterior third party to lend credibility to this propagandic puff piece. That’s why they co-opted a line from the New York Times: respectability and credibility. However, they need to be able to pass this off skewed in a way which helps them.

1, Snopes absolutely MUST paraphrase and cannot directly quote the New York Times article because then they would have to lead with the phrase “Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said”. All but the hardest of the hardcore leftists wouldn’t accept that. Most people would read that and say “Wtf, you’re literally quoting a spoke person for the Clinton campaign? Forget shilling, that guy is employed for no other purpose than to produce spin. What a load of bull.”

2, Snopes also cannot provide a direct link TO the New York Times article because far from dismissing the possibility that Hillary was directly involved in the sale of Uranium One to Russia: the article strongly suggests she played a major role in it via the connection of contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

3, Another reason Snopes cannot provide a direct link TO the New York Times article is issue 1, the paraphrasing. the statement Snopes made: is not in the New York Times article, you can do 50 word searches and it’s not there. Yet you can’t have people finding out that they paraphrased instead of quoted because then you’d discover the wtfuckery Snopes was up to. Snopes wouldn’t want it’s readers to directly discover, too easily, that they paraphrased a quote from the Clinton campaign spokesman.

So with all of the above in mind, Snopes paraphrased a Clinton campaign spokesperson who was quoted in the New York Times article specifically without directly quoting and without linking to said article.

Hoping that their readers wouldn’t notice and would respond “Snopes says the New York Times said so George, and if Snopes says the New York Times said so George then the New York Times Said so George.”

Proof positive, before your eyes: it was this easy to catch Snopes in the act of lying, this very day. They are a propagandist organization shilling for leftist progressives and demonstrably telling bold faced lies to their readership in order to create said propaganda.

It was this hard, it took this much effort. Oh wait, reverse that: it was this easy, it took this little effort. Folks, Snopes is fake news on a good day and flagrant propaganda on an important day.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

Published by

Observing Libertarian

I am a Humanist small L libertarian Deontological Minarchist. In that order - As a result of this philosophy: I cannot in good conscience condone the actions of any group, movement or organization which seeks to oppress another individuals human rights. By education I have an Associates of Occupational Studies in Gunsmithing, and am qualified to testify in Open Court on the State's behalf as a Firearms expert. I am also an NRA Certified Firearm Instructor. I am currently in the Process of writing two books on Philosophy
View all posts by Observing Libertarian